March 8, 2014

1. Scott Walker 2014 Before Walker can (or should) think about running for the presidency, he needs to win re-election to his seat in Wisconsin....

2. CPAC is designed to give lesser known conservatives a chance to shine.Walker had his moment.... Conservatives know who Walker is, and they don't need a reminder of that two years away from the primaries.

3. There's nothing wrong with being mysterious two years out from a presidential contest....4. Going to CPAC = being in the media spotlight.... By staying away, Walker avoids that judgment-fest.

Not to be negative, but there is no way someone without a college degree, who left school under mysterious circumstances, becomes President. I mean it would be controversial enough for a candidate to not in some way passed through Harvard or Yale.

The Dems in Wisconsin have tried to play the No College Degree card. Has not worked. You can try to construct a intellectual lightweight narrative around Walker, but in fact he's pretty smart, well spoken, well read. When three of the last Presidential candidates are W. Bush, Kerry, and Gore, it's pretty hard to defend elite college education as a key factor in Presidential preparation.

Regardless of how smart they are, you just listed Yale, Yale, Harvard. I'm not pretending it has anything to do with intelligence, but I think it will obviously matter on a national scale. An Ivy education signals more about elite insider status than intelligence anyways.

The people most heavily invested in Ivy League credentials are not inclined to vote for a Republican. It matters, but it cuts both ways. I don't pretend to have your ability to see into the future, but I think it's too early to write Walker off.

From NRO on the straw poll, "Disappointing showings by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who took fourth place with 8 percent, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who pulled in 6 percent, show how those former power hitters have slumped. Both are already in danger of becoming stars of yesteryear. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and former Senator Rick Santorum could be said to have gotten a push, with 7 percent each. Neither is on at the top of anybody’s list of likely presidents, but both did OK."

I think it's wise not to become a target so early. Wait, be patient, bide your time.

From what I've seen and heard of Walker, I like him so far. I don't know if I like him the most or not, but I do like him.

If he turns out to be a Tim Pawlenty media type, forget it. He'll lose my support. But if he turns out to be a fighter like Chris Christie (Even if it's in a more congenial manner) he'll retain my support and I think he'll make it far.

I graduated from Harvard College and Columbia Law School. Those credentials don't impress me much. The current president went to the same universities, in the opposite order, and he's a disaster (and he isn't very smart).

Scott Walker speaks well and he has done a heck of a job standing up against the public employee unions and their leftist ideological supporters. I'd really love to see Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or whoever else the Democrats put up attack him for being dumb. For one thing, Walker knows what difference at this point it makes.

You guys have this Link trolling nonsense as stuck in your heads as your crazy racial ideas. I've even seen you guys claim Ann uses me to raise HER click rate, like I - alone - could make much difference.

It's insane.

I gave you a link because I thought it was useful - not to raise my clicks because (this is going to shock you) I could care less. My blog has had as little as 250 visitors in a day and as many as 20,000. What difference is your click going to matter? What do you think is going to happen if I get your click? When I got 20,000 did the world change? Did I get rich? Popular?

Back to the main topic about CPAC.I'm not sure that CPAC is the king maker among conservatives. Scott Walker has obviously made an impact on Wisconsin but he still has to make the case for himself at the national level.

Why, it seems like only yesterday that I was hanging out with all my southern republican-conservative-dixiecrat pals from 1962 (we were taking a well earned break from oppressing peoples of the sun and higher pigment from around the world as well as still not voting republican even though apparently we were all republicans) and we thought to ourselves, hey, what can we do to oppress that Crack guy?

Of course, the first question asked was "who is this crack guy?"

And I said, you know, the oppressed fellow from the internet.

They asked "what's the internet"

And I replied: "oh that's right, we still only have Al Gore Sr as our senator, since this is only 1962 after all; that internet-y thing tain't ev'n 'roun yet I said, as I spat the chewing tobacco juice from my mouth onto the caricature picture of one o'them east coast patrician class all elitist-y country club republicans...whom apparently I was in alignment with though I didn't know it....."

If this posting seems a bit space-time “violate-y” (but not space-time rape-rapey, which might or might not be wrong), it might be because that’s how all of cracks postings come across.

I can’t tell if he wants to help people now, be rewarded for rescuing blacks by using the underground railroad, wants extra credit for starting all those African universities in Africa in the 1400’s that were stolen by the white man, is still pissed off about Aristotle stealing all of the black antiquities knowledge and then burning the Alexandria library (even though Aristotle was dead for several hundred years before the library burned), etc.

The college dropout is unqualified thing is a hypocritical tactic for progressives. How can you laud Gates, Jobs, Zuckerburg, Dell, Ted Turner, Newell and etc. Could it be possible that since becoming a billionaire does not require degree completion you could be president without it? It seems that elites find separate reasons to condemn those they like and dislike, it's not "cognitive dissonance" but lack of elementary judgement and mental clarity.

The college dropout is unqualified thing is a hypocritical tactic for progressives. How can you laud Gates, Jobs, Zuckerburg, Dell, Ted Turner, Newell and etc. Could it be possible that since becoming a billionaire does not require degree completion you could be president without it? It seems that elites find separate reasons to condemn those they like and dislike, it's not "cognitive dissonance" but lack of elementary judgement and mental clarity.

The Dems in Wisconsin have tried to play the No College Degree card. Has not worked. You can try to construct a intellectual lightweight narrative around Walker, but in fact he's pretty smart, well spoken, well read. When three of the last Presidential candidates are W. Bush, Kerry, and Gore, it's pretty hard to defend elite college education as a key factor in Presidential preparation.

Not like Obama is blessed with intellect, wisdom, or common sense.

I'd never heard of Clinton in '89

Tragic. He gave an amazingly horrible speech at the 1988 DNC. His biggest applause line was "In closing..."